Althouse: Senator Ben Nelson, bought off.

December 19, 2009

Senator Ben Nelson, bought off.

"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree. But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."

109 comments:

Anonymous said...: Another Democrat voting his conscience, as our Mr. Geater would have it.; 12/19/09, 10:22 AM
David said...: Finally a solution to the great moral debate about abortion: enrolees pay for abortion coverage by separate check; 12/19/09, 10:23 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Who wants to throw up?

Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) at his press conference this morning:

"Some who are progressives, they feel that this bill doesn't go far enough. There are others who say why didn't we get a public option? I've fought for a public option, but this bill will do many good things for so many people."

"Some on the right think this bill goes too far. They want to stop it. To them I say, you have a lack of understanding of the problems in America today . . . I say to those people, who want this stopped, they need to read our mail for a little while."

"At 1 p.m. today you will all have a detailed briefing from our staffs."

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) at the same presser:

"Our bill is fully paid for and it will reduce the national debt."

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Connt.):

You need a team captain, who brings everyone together. We've been truly blessed to have Harry Reid as our leader.

We stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes quality health care a right.

(Quotes FDR's "Four Freedoms")

"We're trying to ensure you'll never again have that fear."

"The bill frees Americans from the fear."

LIARS. Where's the CBO score? Where's the bill? What's in it?; 12/19/09, 10:23 AM
vet66 said...: Forget worrying about his colleagues, he should start worrying about his constituents that he was hired to represent. This monstrosity of a bill will cause physicians to retire as more people are added to the insured/underinsured rolls, pass the cost down the road to future generations, cause taxes to go up immediately, pave the way for single payer government insurance, longer waits, less coverage, bureaucratic presence in the doctor's office beyond what it is now, failure to cover tort reform, and failure to request identification from illegal aliens who will be the beneficiaries of de facto amnesty with access to the health system.

Regarding abortion funds, if he thinks that the feds won't be paying for abortions one way or another he is mistaken or delusional. Either way, I hope his constituents put him on the street with the rest of the irresponsible politicians who ignore the public.; 12/19/09, 10:23 AM
sakredkow said...: No doubt the Senator was "bought off." But I'm gonna take a wild guess that almost everybody in the Senate does this kind of thing regardless of political party? Correct? Incorrect?; 12/19/09, 10:25 AM
bagoh20 said...: I don't see why people are so cynical about congress. They always make us proud. That's why we keep reelecting them; to thank them for their fine work.; 12/19/09, 10:27 AM
jayne_cobb said...: I have always viewed politicians with contempt and assumed that they were almost all crooks, but even I am shocked by the level of shamelessness on display.

What makes this even worse is that the politicians are being bought off with the taxpayers' money.; 12/19/09, 10:29 AM
Michael Haz said...: Any Democrat and quite a few Republicans can be bought if the price is right. Ben Nelson wanted a bit more money in order to throw the unborn under the bus.

wv sylents. Wonder how much it cost to buy Nelson's sylents?; 12/19/09, 10:30 AM
jayne_cobb said...: AprilApple,

The CBO score will almost certainly show savings with this bill as it will likely include 10 years of taxes but only 7 years of service.; 12/19/09, 10:33 AM
John said...: And Oceania has never been at war with Eastasia.

wv proustue A Senate whore; 12/19/09, 10:33 AM
bagoh20 said...: I was in Nevada last week and saw anti-Reid signs everywhere. I like this one: "Anyone butt Reid." He is pretty much toast. Every Republican thinking of running is out-polling him.; 12/19/09, 10:33 AM
Bissage said...: A Senate vote is a fucking valuable thing. You just don’t give it away for nothing.; 12/19/09, 10:34 AM
Matt Eckert said...: Tark the Shark's kid is going to beat old Harry's ass for him.; 12/19/09, 10:34 AM
sakredkow said...: And not only is this a Democrat AND Republican problem, it's not going to get fixed until people see it that way and stop pointing fingers only at one or the other parties.; 12/19/09, 10:37 AM
Unknown said...: Nelson and a lot of other people figure the jig is up and are getting out now while they can get a good deal. They know people are mad and "Re-elect nobody" is going to get more and more popular.

phx said...

No doubt the Senator was "bought off." But I'm gonna take a wild guess that almost everybody in the Senate does this kind of thing regardless of political party? Correct? Incorrect?

To paraphrase Cole Porter, in olden days, it was called horsetrading, jawboning, etc.; 12/19/09, 10:42 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Jayne Cobb-
Certainly the CBO score might show a tangled mess of "savings" on the assumption the cuts to Medicare really occur, and the taxes raised by taxing "others" to pay for it can kick in soon enough to cover the billion (trillions) of dollars in cost.

How this secret monstrosity will strangle the rest of our teetering economy will be casually ignored.; 12/19/09, 10:44 AM
former law student said...: At least Ben Nelson doesn't believe the right to life ends at birth, as do do many of his compatriots.

Interesting that there are so many poor people in Nebraska needing Medicaid, a right to work state for over forty years that I know of.; 12/19/09, 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: If the whole thing is repealed in 2012, or whenever, will Sen. Nelson still get his goodies?

Answered by the verification word:
vw=perhab
Perhabs he will.

Thanks, verification word!; 12/19/09, 10:52 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional

http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight.php

"In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses."; 12/19/09, 10:53 AM
SteveR said...: More debt, higher costs, worse coverage. Great plan.; 12/19/09, 10:57 AM
vbspurs said...: "Senator Ben Nelson, bought off."

I know Blanche Lincoln is gone if she votes for this abortion of a Bill, so who knows, we may have a surprise come Christmas Eve.; 12/19/09, 11:00 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: How is Senator Byrd feeling these days?

Depending on your viewpoint, it would be funny or cruel or ironic or apropos if Byrd got very sick and could not get to Congress to cast that 60th yes vote!; 12/19/09, 11:02 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Bought-off, alright.

From a press conference going on right now:

"This bill is a "legislative train wreck of historic proportions."

"The bill includes permissive language on government-funded abortion."

Medicaid: "The bill imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the cost of Medicaid. At the same time, however, it gives special sweetheart deals to a select few states. Interestingly enough, two states that stand out are Nebraska and Vermont." This means that taxpayers elsewhere around the country end up "paying more so that Nebraska and Vermont can get a special deal."

"A bill that was sold as helping a major problem in our nation actually makes the problem worse."

"If this was a good bill with bipartisan support, they would not be trying to pass this the weekend before Christmas and in the middle of the night."; 12/19/09, 11:02 AM
former law student said...: it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return

First, does this constitutional entitlement apply to my 401K?

But second, There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law.
-- Robert Anson Heinlein; 12/19/09, 11:04 AM
David J. Backes said...: Vote. Them. All. Out. Time for a revolution.; 12/19/09, 11:05 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Mitch McConnell says:

"I'm here with a message for the American people . . . This is not renaming a post office. Make no mistake, this bill will reshape our nation and our lives . . . [Democrats are] counting on the American people being preoccupied with Christmas and not paying much attention to what they're doing."

Harry Reid - 1
American tax payers - 0; 12/19/09, 11:06 AM
hombre said...: "I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree."

That's right, Ben. It's all about your and your "colleagues," there is no world out here watching you whores.; 12/19/09, 11:07 AM
jayne_cobb said...: "Interesting that there are so many poor people in Nebraska needing Medicaid, a right to work state for over forty years that I know of."

Yes, and that right to work state has an unemployment rate of only 4.5%.; 12/19/09, 11:18 AM
Deborah M. said...: What makes this even worse is that the politicians are being bought off with the taxpayers' money.

Bought off, admit it, proud of it!; 12/19/09, 11:26 AM
Simon Kenton said...: I assume everyone commenting con here has called their Senators' offices first, to urge them to vote "no"? I have. I hope my senators regard their vote as a last-ditch attempt to save their incumbency, but I don't think they do. They give every sign of becoming an epic fail. Any one who votes for this has lost my vote, and more important, my contributions, now and forever.; 12/19/09, 11:27 AM
KCFleming said...: fls, that's a gross misunderstanding of the Heinlein quote.

It does not mean that the government and the courts are charged with the duty of preventing businesses from succeeding, shutting them down, or picking winners and losers, much less destroying the economy.

Heinlein was not a socialist.; 12/19/09, 11:29 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Huffpo:

Truth the Next Casualty in the White House Push for the Senate Bill?

Statement: "First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 - in fact it is a substantial net tax cut for American families."

Fact: In 2019, six years after this bill takes effect, the excise tax will affect one in five taxpayers making $50-$75,000 per year. The average tax impact on people in this income bracket will rise to $1,100 in 2019. Overall, more than 24 million taxpayers (or "tax units") will be affected by 2019.(1)

The CBO found that the tax would impact 19% of all employees with health insurance by 2016.; 12/19/09, 11:49 AM
Jason said...: And so the decades-long campaign of the Democratic party to permanently ruin the country continues apace.; 12/19/09, 11:49 AM
ricpic said...: Who'll remember 2009's villainy by the time November 2010 rolls around? That's the Dems' strategy...and it well might work.; 12/19/09, 11:49 AM
Chennaul said...: AJ-

Oh, they would find a way.

It would be like Bernie's Vacation -

Does Washington DC

sorta like porn for Liberals.; 12/19/09, 11:50 AM
Chennaul said...: And what the hell-

Obama comes out for a Photo Op on this health care bill and he has-

Dodd, Baucus and Reid standing behind him.

It's like -

Corrupt, Sex schmuck, Corrupt.

The Democrat Mount Rushmore standing behind him.

Imagine if Bush would have come out for a current bill with Sanford, Ensign and Craig standing behind him.

[wv:gamin-just perfect.]; 12/19/09, 11:56 AM
kimsch said...: I would call my senators, but it would be an exercise in futility. Durbin and Burris won't change their votes no matter how many people call.

wv: torspi; 12/19/09, 11:57 AM
Darcy said...: LOL. As if this was ever in question. It's going to pass, it won't be repealed, and there will be no more free elections.

The socialists have been given the country by the 52%. Well done.

A lot of us have already felt what it feels like to have no vote (try living in Michigan). Now the rest of the country will feel it, too.; 12/19/09, 12:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: So Ben Nelson, the old style DemonRat, is just another corrupt little man who needs easy money. Surprise, surprise. IMO a better method of political power is to let every Senator auction off his vote on E-Bay. That would be much more democratic.; 12/19/09, 12:01 PM
gk1 said...: Its strange to watch one party deliberately commit political suicide. This will be like the porkulus bill on steroids and every misstep and problem healthcare has along the way will be blamed on the democrats till the cows come home. Great job, Obamy!; 12/19/09, 12:15 PM
MnMark said...: There's not much point in complaining about Ben Nelson or Democrats or parliamentary tactics and so on. Both sides do roughly the same thing when they are in power, though I do think the Democrats have an overall track record of greater corruption in terms of election fraud - their progressive component seems to feel that anything goes.

I see the whole thing as confirmation of this old truth:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

The Dems just seem to be a little stupider or more corrupt or something and are the party that more wholeheartedly votes their constituents more benefits from the treasury. But some party was going to do it, and from FDR or even Wilson onward it's all been tending towards this, which WILL end in economic collapse, poverty, and eventual revolution.

Best thing we can do is save and prepare as best we can.; 12/19/09, 12:19 PM
Steve Pierson said...: P. J. O'Rourke got it right - Congress is a "parliament of whores". Actually, they give whores a bad name.; 12/19/09, 12:27 PM
Steve Pierson said...: MnMark wrote:

I see the whole thing as confirmation of this old truth:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

It seems that rational humans would see that collapse and dictatorship is the end result, and choose to avoid that path. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

WV: afflipub - where I'm going to drown my sorrows.; 12/19/09, 12:33 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "Is Truth the Next Casualty in the White House Push for the Senate Bill?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/is-truth-the-next-casualt_b_396478.html

Interesting that the some on the left are not real impressed with the deception.; 12/19/09, 12:34 PM
vbspurs said...: Interesting that the some on the left are not real impressed with the deception.

Maybe they don't want to be the ones who have to break it to the old folk who voted for Obama, that they will be losing significant Medicare funds to pay for this junk Bill.

Hell hath no fury, like a Q-tip denied a walker.; 12/19/09, 12:42 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The CBO is saying:
It will reduce the federal deficit. Then it says this:
"The nearly $900 billion bill would be paid for by $483 billion in cuts to Medicare and other federal health programs, as well as tax increases."

Who appointed the pointy heads at the CBO?; 12/19/09, 12:43 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Look: UHC could have been blocked using my plan. Instead, the leaders of the opposition to UHC just encouraged people to go to public meetings and act like little children.

If you oppose UHC, ask your leaders why they didn't encourage people to help with my plan but instead encouraged things that - in the final analysis - were ineffective.; 12/19/09, 12:44 PM
John said...: One thing that has come from this is that the idea that there is such a thing as a moderate or blue dog Democrat has been ended. It doesn't matter the name or the place that the Dem comes from, they are all the same; Warner, Bachus, Nelson, Shuler, Pelosi, Reid. They are all equally left. Some just lie about it better.; 12/19/09, 1:07 PM
jayne_cobb said...: Lonewacko,

Have you ever actually convinced a single person to use your plan?

Seriously. I'm curious.; 12/19/09, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...: If Lonewacko were the sort of person who could be convinced that our leaders have never heard of him, he wouldn't be Lonewacko.; 12/19/09, 1:09 PM
jayne_cobb said...: I suppose that's true.

But given how hard he sells his plans here and on other sites I visit I would like a demonstration, or at the very least a testimonial.; 12/19/09, 1:13 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Darcy:

Don't despair. I guarantee the bill will be repealed and the American people will get behind a push towards making Congress part-time legislators. Why do I say that? Because they never really fix anything so WTF do we need them for?; 12/19/09, 1:25 PM
Darcy said...: Thanks, AJ.; 12/19/09, 1:28 PM
Methadras said...: Judas was cheaper.; 12/19/09, 1:31 PM
Palladian said...: The problem with these kinds of socialist disasters is that once they've taken effect, there is no going back because they destroy the structure that was in place before.

Once that rough beast slouches into the gates of Bethlehem, there's no stopping it.

Things fall apart. The centre cannot hold. Mere socialism is loosed upon the US of A.; 12/19/09, 1:37 PM
MDIJim said...: Has no one considered the possibility that Nelson has "grown" in office? There'll be a few op-eds in tomorrow's papers praising Nelson's growth in office. They'll probably even manage to find a rancher in western Neb who will lean on a fence, squint at the camera and assert that 'ole Ben' never forgot his routes, whilst pocketing a fat agricultural subsidy payment.

wv indes; 12/19/09, 2:09 PM
Titus said...: I love Russ Feingold.

My parents said his staff always responds to them.

Russ Feingold Rules!

And he is hot.

I would definitely do him.; 12/19/09, 2:12 PM
Titus said...: I hope David Vitter voted his family values on this bill.

I think David Vitter is kean or is it keane or whatever.

I am about ready to pinch a loaf. I wish all of you were here to witness it.; 12/19/09, 2:14 PM
Methadras said...: Titus said...

I am about ready to pinch a loaf. I wish all of you were here to witness it.

We do. Every time you post.; 12/19/09, 2:49 PM
BJM said...: I'd speculate that someone in the WH probably uttered the magic phrase that turned Nelson, not Reid: 2010 Base Closure List.

Those of us approaching SS/Medicare age with elderly parents are about to be doubly screwed.

Elders in deep old age who don't have family who can assist them financially will find themselves in the same position as Brit seniors.

Don't think you will be spared if you're a younger middle-class taxpayer.

The dunderheads in Washington may believe they are smarter than their UK counterparts; however that they move towards a single payer system proves them fools.

Can anyone name a nationalized health care system any where in the world that is solvent? Where care/access/drugs are not rationed?; 12/19/09, 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do Democrats hate America? Why do they hate us?; 12/19/09, 3:23 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek are examples of what's wrong with American politics. There wasn't much actual debate in previous years, and there's almost none now. Instead, the MSM constantly misleads, pundits and media figures basically just put on a show, and right and left bloggers do the same (hoping one day to rise to the level of a Beck or an Olbermann). I hesitate to call people like jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek braindead, because they are able to type. I hesitate to use other terms because I don't want to degrade those who have mental disabilities.

In any case, their mindsets (loosely speaking) are toxic to democracy. They appreciate the current situation rather than trying to change it. (It's also a logical fallacy to make me responsible for doing everything; sometimes people have to help themselves.)

For the rest of you, here's a demonstration of my plan; 99.99% of Americans have probably never heard of her and I didn't get it on video. However, the point is that I set out to make an opponent look bad, and I did that. If she were well-known it would have had an impact on the wider discussion of that issue.

The fact that almost no one else is trying to do things like that should scare the crap out of you. We might as well be living in the USSR, with jayne_cobb and Paul Zrimsek in the role of tiny little bureaucrats protecting the current order.; 12/19/09, 3:28 PM
kentuckyliz said...: The Senate is pinching a giant loaf onto the American people.; 12/19/09, 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do Democrats hate America? Why do they hate us?; 12/19/09, 3:31 PM
kentuckyliz said...: The Brits sound so happy with their scheme. Especially the middle class and the elderly.

I think I'll go over there and be a chav on the dole. Sounds like they have it made.; 12/19/09, 3:49 PM
Revenant said...: I haven't particularly been paying attention to the health care "debate", since there's nothing I can do to influence the outcome anyway... but when did Lieberman get back on board with voting for the bill? Or did they manage to find enough Republican votes that they don't need him anymore?; 12/19/09, 4:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Rev:

Liberman did the kabuki dance until they eliminated public option and expanding Medicare. Or so he claims.

No Reps have yet stated they support the bill.; 12/19/09, 4:17 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The whole Lieberman thing seems like a big phony exercised manipulation at this point.

The point of this trillion dollar tax-payer funded disaster is to lead us to the "public option."

It will be interesting to see which insurance companies are allowed to stay in business. The democrats now decide.; 12/19/09, 4:27 PM
Revenant said...: Thanks, AJ.; 12/19/09, 4:55 PM
knox said...: Torn between an outraged "Fuck!" and a resigned "Inevitable..."

Some Russian wrote a book about the US splitting up into 4 different regions. Did he say which one doesn't have democrats?; 12/19/09, 5:22 PM
hdhouse said...: phx said...
No doubt the Senator was "bought off." But I'm gonna take a wild guess that almost everybody in the Senate does this kind of thing regardless of political party? Correct? Incorrect?"

Why how dare you inpune that the 40 republicans voted as one because of some other agenda or guiding hand?!

The republicans are all saints. Moral outrage just applies to democrats.

didn't George Bush teach you anything?; 12/19/09, 5:35 PM
knox said...: The republicans are all saints. Moral outrage just applies to democrats.

Get your head out of your ass. One of the major political movements going on right now is that conservatives are rejecting republicans.; 12/19/09, 6:18 PM
Balfegor said...: I was in Nevada last week and saw anti-Reid signs everywhere. I like this one: "Anyone butt Reid." He is pretty much toast. Every Republican thinking of running is out-polling him.

This is basically his final F-U to the voters. That was Obama's pitch to Congress a while ago -- that the protesters will never vote for you anyway so you might as well vote for this thing and screw the people over in revenge. Absolute bastardy.; 12/19/09, 6:33 PM
Ned said...: Uneducated voters results in dimwit politicians; 12/19/09, 6:39 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "Anyone butt Reid" . Hahaha. If Titus were there,he would of.

wv = prize = I should get one for this comment.; 12/19/09, 7:09 PM
hdhouse said...: info....

do all the dimwits live in republican states? interesting point you made.; 12/19/09, 7:29 PM
Unknown said...: Wait until it warms up and people can have more tea parties and marches on Washington. It's gonna be huge and it's gonna get ugly. We'll have true bipartisanship: nutroot leftists, independents, and Republicans all agreeing that this bill sucks (but for different reasons).

Pass the popcorn!; 12/19/09, 7:43 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: One of the major political movements going on right now is that conservatives are rejecting republicans.

If that's the case, (and it sure goes against your script of an anticipated GOP resurgence in 2010), then... it sure took them long enough!

Maybe if they hadn't been so focused on political uniformity and movement politics for the last 16 years, they might have avoided coming to this point.

They are not a credible representative for taking on the status quo. Not long after they became the majority, they became their own status quo. And the first chance after that that they got at the oval office, they proved that corruption, cronyism and every other sort of political malfeasance they committed made the status quo that much more worthy of protection to them.; 12/19/09, 9:05 PM
Robert Cook said...: "The socialists have been given the country by the 52%. Well done."

Sheer idiocy. This is a fucking GIFT to the insurance companies, who are guaranteed a forced customer base to whom they will sell shit policies that either charge too much for the benefits they provide or that have affordable premiums but require exorbitant deductibles and provide pitiful benefits.

This is the triumph of CAPITALISM, people! HOO-FUCKING-RAY!!!

(Bravo to Howard Dean for his straight talk on this travesty!); 12/19/09, 9:14 PM
Jason said...: The higher the deductible, the better. Pray for a 10 thousand annual deductible. 15 thousand for a family plan. Let employers fully deduct contributions to a savings account to fill in the gap. I'd say let wrkers do the same, but democrats have already proven themselves stupid enough to outlaw high deductble plans combned with HSAs. May those rats burn in hell for the destruction they cause. Bastards.; 12/19/09, 9:38 PM
Revenant said...: If that's the case, (and it sure goes against your script of an anticipated GOP resurgence in 2010)

The expected resurgence is due to independents and moderates rejecting the Democratic Party.

Plus, of course, conservative rejection of Republicans runs into the cold truth that Democratic control of government is a disaster for Americans. So even conservatives who loathe the Republican party -- and there are more of them every day -- are still likely to vote for the lesser evil.; 12/19/09, 9:52 PM
Revenant said...: This is the triumph of CAPITALISM, people! HOO-FUCKING-RAY!!!

Even if your "this is a windfall for the insurance companies" story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate.; 12/19/09, 9:58 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: the cold truth that Democratic control of government is a disaster for Americans.

Exactly which "disaster for Americans" has been caused by Democratic control of government?

Seeing as how you're so into cold truths and all...; 12/19/09, 10:05 PM
Revenant said...: Exactly which "disaster for Americans" has been caused by Democratic control of government?

If you read carefully, you'll note that I said Democratic control of government *was* the disaster for Americans.

I wouldn't say they've personally caused any disasters, at least not until this health care scheme passes. Although adding a trillion dollars to the debt for a "stimulus" package that appears to have actually worsened our economic situation is certainly a near-disaster, at the least. :); 12/19/09, 10:20 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: So you admit you have no examples of any actual disasters that have actually happened now that the Democrats are in control. Instead, you just label their control as a disaster in itself. No reason. Just because. I don't like it! said Mr Smarty Pants Revenant!

Makes me wonder how disastrous you found the near collapse of our economy under Bush in October '08. Apparently that's an example of the kind of wise government management that Americans should strive to recreate because, you know, it wasn't a bunch of Democrats that made it happen. Pity about the increased debt at the time and all but, hey, no Democrats in charge of that. Which is what matters.

The best thing about Republicans is that when they disastrously fuck things up, they're doing so as Republicans. See, because they're not Democrats, it's not a problem! What a brilliant solution!

Try reading some John Maynard Keynes when you get a chance. It would be a lovely tonic to your backward embrace of mercantilism, or barter and trade, or whatever primitive understanding of antiquated hocus pocus economics you're trying to reinvigorate here.; 12/19/09, 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh Ben, how low you can you go?

This day will be your own day of infamy.; 12/19/09, 10:37 PM
Revenant said...: Instead, you just label their control as a disaster in itself. No reason.

Well, you are welcome to think there is "no reason" to consider the last three years of Democratic Congressional domination a disaster. But it would appear that more and more voters have found reasons. :); 12/19/09, 11:27 PM
Steven said...: Even if your "this is a windfall for the insurance companies" story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate.

It's really quite interesting. Every time part of the left compromises and tries to create a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, they wind up creating the same thing that disillusioned Italian Marxists did back just after WWI. Yet they never seem to actually notice that they just keep re-inventing the same economic system as the founders of fascism.; 12/20/09, 12:10 AM
SadforUS said...: Congrat's Senator Nelson. You will be written about in American History books to come..Hopefully you will stand on par with such notable character's as Benedict Arnold.; 12/20/09, 12:16 AM
Methadras said...: Robert Cook said...

This is the triumph of CAPITALISM, people! HOO-FUCKING-RAY!!!

No you moron, the triumph of capitalism would be the natural outgrowth of unhindered commerce. This is nothing more than government sanctioned wealth redistribution as a function of corporate welfare. Guess where all the money will flow back to? Congress. These fuckers are going to pass a bill that enriches themselves, government mandate.; 12/20/09, 2:07 AM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @Revenant: Maybe you should READ that article on corporatism. It has nothing to do with corporations as we use the word today. It means something like the state treating all farmers as a bloc, or all Catholics as a bloc, something like the Estates of feudalism.

@Robert Cook: Government coercing insurance companies to do the unprofitable, and coercing taxpayers to give the insurance companies money, fails to meet the definition of even the Marxist caricature of capitalism.

This is fascism plain and simple--forcing citizens to patronize private companies, which in turn are shaken down. "Protection" in the Mafia sense.

I don't know why leftists think that people with money are more to be feared than people with guns.; 12/20/09, 2:25 AM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @fls: If you read "Life-line" and used the quote in that context, you are a liar.

In "Life-line" Dr. Pinero invents a machine that made life insurance obsolete by predicting exactly when a given person will die. The insurance companies sue to force him out of business--they want "fair trade", not "free trade". That is the context of your quote.

Either you cribbed it off a website or you a liar. Heinlein would tunr over in his grave at the thought of his words being used to justify the government forcing people to buy insurance and insurance companies being forced to provide it.

If you were writing "Life-line", the government would force insurance companies to provide full coverage and benefits to people who bought insurance the day before Dr Pinero told them they were to die, and your narrator would applaud and castigate the life insurance companies for their greed.

It's a disgusting and willfull inversion of what Heinlein was trying to say.; 12/20/09, 2:41 AM
Revenant said...: Maybe you should READ that article on corporatism. It has nothing to do with corporations as we use the word today.

I never said it did.

It means something like the state treating all farmers as a bloc

... and all health care providers as a bloc, and all insurers as a bloc, and all consumers as a bloc...

For example, corporatism required factory owners to collude, under government supervision, to provide products meeting certain criteria, made by producers making a set wage, for uniform prices. Substitute "insurance companies" for "factory owners" and you've got the Democrats' plan.; 12/20/09, 5:21 AM
Fen said...: Makes me wonder how disastrous you found the near collapse of our economy under Bush in October '08. Apparently that's an example of the kind of wise government management that Americans should strive to recreate because, you know, it wasn't a bunch of Democrats that made it happen

Community Re-Investment Act was the cause of the economic crash. Libtards forced banks to give risky loans to inner city folks [blacks]. Libtards threatened banks with false charges of racism if they didn't, promising to place them on a dnp list so they couldn't expand against their competiters.

Bush tried twice to fix this and Fannie/Freddie. Was stopped by Dems both times.

So your points couldn't be any more ironic and ignorant.; 12/20/09, 7:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: "This is nothing more than government sanctioned wealth redistribution as a function of corporate welfare."

And this is capitalism as practiced in the U.S.A., bub. The corporate swine who run things call the shots, the Congresspeople plead "How high?" in anticipation of the orders to "Jump!", (while sticking their hands out for their graft payments), and the electorate gets the shaft.; 12/20/09, 7:26 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Government coercing insurance companies to do the unprofitable...."

Oh, this won't be unprofitable for the insurance companies, no sir, not at all. This will provide them with millions more, if not billions, in revenue. Why do you think the insurance companies have been claiming to be in favor of "health reform"(sic)?; 12/20/09, 7:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...the last three years of Democratic Congressional domination...."

Hahahaha! Shit, the fucking democrats aren't dominating now, when they've got control of both houses and the White House, much less while Bully Boy was in office! The Republicans, discredited for their disastrous 8 year complete fucking of the country still determine the parameters of debate and what will be deemed "acceptable." The dems don't want to "offend" their colleagues across the aisle, so we see the dems, including the O Man, shaping policy they think will be welcomed by the shits in elephant suits, and the crimes of the last administration are not just overlooked but continued with the new boss.; 12/20/09, 7:42 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Even if your 'this is a windfall for the insurance companies' story was true, that would represent a triumph of corporatism, not capitalism. It is the antithesis of capitalism, as it abolishes the free market in favor of a government mandate."

See my previous comments. This is American capitalism, and so it has been for decades.; 12/20/09, 7:44 AM
hdhouse said...: Fen said...
"Community Re-Investment Act was the cause of the economic crash. Libtards forced banks to give risky loans to inner city folks [blacks]."

Ahhhhh the voice of a moderate republican. Aren't you all proud to be affiliated with Fen?; 12/20/09, 7:59 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: One party rule:

The CBO assessment of the bill tells the appalling story. We are going to raise taxes by half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by $470 billion but use that money to fund a new entitlement rather than to fix Medicare itself, bend the health care cost curve up rather than down, insert layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, and compel and subsidize universal participation in a failed system of health insurance rather than reform or improve it.; 12/20/09, 8:08 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Well, you are welcome to think there is "no reason" to consider the last three years of Democratic Congressional domination a disaster. But it would appear that more and more voters have found reasons. :)

And they are...?

Which bill did Democrats pass in the last three years that was a disaster for America?

Of course, you are welcome to still that admit you can't list any, while dispensing with nothing more than mysterious and vague gainsaying, and cute, smirky smiley faces while alluding to the electorate. But that's because you love right-wing populism more than you do your country.; 12/20/09, 9:32 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: The Community Reinvestment Act dates back to 1977. In my book, that gives the Bush administration eight years to address it and a Republican congress ten years to address it. And, in fact, that's what they did - largely for the worse - with legislative changes in 1999 and regulatory changes in 2005 and 2007. But of course, because the crash still happened, you want to blame it on the Democrats and reverse-racism because that script plays better to your base.

Nevermind the difference between racism and a bad investment, as if some asshole denying a loan to a black applicant just because he thinks blacks are inherently less credit worthy, is acting in anyone's economic best interests.

So go on, confuse the issue, blame it on the blacks, and who knows, maybe the Jews, and let Bush and Phil Gramm and the rest of those idiots off the hook entirely. Maybe you can recruit Cedarford to help you write your analysis.

Talk about irony and ignorance...; 12/20/09, 9:53 AM
former law student said...: Hanna -- In "Life-Line" it was possible to bankrupt the insurance companies by refraining from buying insurance till your impending death, because of a new invention. Insurance companies were prepared to go to any lengths to preserve their income stream, including assassinating the inventor and destroying the invention. It was a cautionary tale of how there are no checks, legal or moral, on corporate greed.; 12/20/09, 9:56 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Left-wing politics is simple to understand. Democrats simply want to tax us into the shit hole.

Our money belongs to them.
All of it.; 12/20/09, 9:57 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: April is confused. The "shit hole" she perceives is simply her empty values system once it has been stripped of excess greed and materialism. It surrounds and engulfs her.

It must be very disconcerting.; 12/20/09, 10:54 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Behold: The modern progressive brain.

I am greedy for not wanting the government, and one party in particular, to tax and steel, beyond what is acceptable and fair, what is mine.

I am greedy for not wanting to be on the public dole.

I am materialistic for not providing approval and applause to a government that is systematically destroying the private sector to pay for government largess, and unsustainable delusions.; 12/20/09, 12:08 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I am greedy for not wanting the government, and one party in particular, to tax and steel, beyond what is acceptable and fair, what is mine.

You certainly are greedy for believing that your definition of "acceptable and fair" should overrule one held to by the vast majority of the electorate which is, justifiably, morally outraged at the plight of the uninsured and "the uninsurable".

I am greedy for not wanting to be on the public dole.

Go ahead and get off it. I didn't realize you were on it. I thought conservatives refer to the effort to do so as "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps", in fact, and considered people in a position to be on it as personal examples of moral failure. Or do conservatives have such a sense of impotence that they believe the government has the power to turn people into moral failures?

I am materialistic for not providing approval and applause to a government that is systematically destroying the private sector to pay for government largess, and unsustainable delusions.

Perhaps then you are just delusional to deny that the bill will cut the deficit, and more than pay for itself. And perhaps you are just delusional to forget the fact that the most recent version contained no public option - as fiscally superior (and more favorable to small businesses and the private sector) as that option would have been. But if that's what it takes for you to stay truer to a particular ideology than to reality, I suppose, maybe you should go with it.

What you are displaying is a capricious disregard for any balance between the private sector and government "largesse", and just arbitrarily pretending that one is eternally in conflict with and opposed to the interests of the other. It doesn't even occur to you that the interests of the private sector have been destroyed by the status quo.

In so doing, you have put American business (a big part of that vaunted "private sector") at a competitive disadvantage. That's hardly an argument in favor of preserving the private sector -- at least, not if the American economy's private sector is really your concern.; 12/20/09, 12:30 PM
Unknown said...: I am truly sorry I voted for this *&^% and I will do everything in my power to make sure he never holds office in NE again. Any bets as to weather Senator Nelson was promised a cabinet post or some other high level govt. job for selling out the lives of the unborn? FURIOUS IN NEBRASKA!!!!; 12/20/09, 6:29 PM
Revenant said...: Hahahaha! Shit, the fucking democrats aren't dominating now, when they've got control of both houses and the White House, much less while Bully Boy was in office!

You're delusional, I'm afraid.; 12/21/09, 8:34 PM